ANTS

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Skewldya]

ANTS is bias.  Im not a n00b nor am I a bad player, but I made my new company and I am 0-4 with it, and it is very hard for me to get in a game right now.


IMO the "new" acct default should be set at at least 30% (higher would be better) UNTIL they get a win, so no matter what they could go 0-10 and still play games as if they were 30%, once they win a single game then it starts taking effect FROM THAT POINT.

[Ucross]

It is that way, that's the number in brackets....

n00b. =P

[Cyber-Couch]

Percents don't help much, I could've only played one game and won by default, therefore I have 100% and everyone is scared of me. Too bad it doesn't show that I have only played one game.

[Draygon]

You didnt get what I was saying Ucross.  The 30% should be that way until they win a game, because as it is now if you go 0-5 well...good luck getting a game ever with that company.  35% would be a good number to stay at UNTIL they win their first game, and then starting from that point on you take in to consideration the actual wins and losses.  so if they play 7 games and lose all 7 games they stay at 35% until they when.  Then once they win, it basically does a little reset and starts counting from there so they would be 1-0 if they win the 8th game and then goes from there, downward most likely because its almost impossible to stay at 100%.  It would give newer players a better chance at playing with the "big dawgs" longer than the current system does.

[TheDrunkenSmurf]

I think its fine, up to the point where the launcher decides,

THAT GAMEZ IZ UNFAIR!


The players should decide that, not the launcher.
I try playing with a bud who has been unfortunately landed with a noob ratio of 8% and we never get a game, except in a 4v4 situation where some good rations balance our more noobish ones.

i think the most people dont understand ants and why some kind of  automatching system is needed

if you let the people decide if they want to play a very unbalanced matchup, the stacked team will often try to look as long for a games as they could find some people....

they will say "come on you can only learn something when you play good players" but they will be not forced to split up and make e.g. a 3v3 with a new player together....

[TodlichPanther]

i still hate mcp, i wish people would hurry up and update there maps to have "objectives" rather than this shit you can run around and cap all over.

[Osprey]

I would like to voice my opinions about the new match creation process whereby players names are hidden.

I have several issues with this system which I will explain in detail, and also explain my reasons for why the change is detrimental to gaming.


Obviously, there are good motives behind the decision. Players have begun to screen their games in terms of player ability, either choosing only to play against new players, and choosing to avoid the best players, in order to keep their chances of winning in the good to very good region. Whilst I disagree with the motives behind this bout of team-stacking (TS), the method of tackling this issue I believe has taken the wrong path.

One of the issue with name hiding is in the basic setting up and creation of games. Many players, myself included, like to use Ventrilo in the setting up of a game to make sure that every player has, for example, the latest version of a map before launch, or actually has Ventrilo, as playing and setting up a game without it is very difficult. Obviously, you can't see who to look for in Vent without names being visible.

Another issue is connectivity. I tried to play a game with Kotszak this morning, and in both games we launched with a player on the opposing team who has known connection issues to Kotszak. If we could see the names, we wouldn't have wasted 15-20 mins launching for a game that was never going to get played. Time wasted in setting up games is a big grievance of mine, as I don't get much time to play anyway, and this new system has compounded this somewhat.

Furthermore, I like to know which players I am coming up against from an early point, so I can consider the best methods to use against them, and also which company would be best suited to playing against their particular style of gameplay. I know many people don't configure their companies for a particular style of opponent, but that is how I have chosen to arrange my three companies. If this name blocking method is used in future, I will simply make copy companies in future. Variation may be the spice of life, but I'd rather have three average companies that are no fun to play with than take and army of Rangers and AT guns against Stormtroopers or KCH, or MGs and Mortars against a known Tiger player [I'm looking at you High velocity Wink].

And lastly for now, is the lack of community element. I mean, heck, if we are just starting a game against a list of blank names, where is the rivalry? Where is the chased vendetta? Where is the friendly jousting over that "You won't beat me this time Apex!" element? I like to play against people I know are fun to play against, even if they're better than me. I can't get good by noob bashing, only by playing against and beating the best of the best. If that means 14 straight defeats to Apex, Thbt and High Velocity, so be it. I may whine about losing all the time, but I will keep playing until I succeed and immortalise myself as the player that destroyed a Level 3 Tiger with a lone M10.


Now that all said, I cannot just sit here and complain about a solution to a problem, without suggesting an alternative. So here we go...

The solution thus far has been a prohibitive one. Prevent players from TS, enforce team balance in games, etc. My suggestion however is this. Rather than try to enforce something that is causing a problem, try to reward the opposite. Is it possible we can find a way to reward players for defeating or being defeated by better opponents?

I hate to use World of Warcraft as an example, but if you take on something that is more powerful than you, you get more experience, in this case however, you should be awarded something for trying also, even if you lose.

For example. For every game against a player with a Win/Loss ratio of 60% or higher, you gain 1 CP and 1 RB for trying, 2 CP and 2 RB for defeating, all in addition to the standard earnings from a game. I may not have thought through the numbers, ok, but it's a method that would encourage gaming against the better players. I would play them all the time if this were the case, I'd get to that T4 skill so much faster.

Or maybe an Experience bonus. You get +5xp per unit for losing to a player in the top 20, +10xp for defeating a player in top 20. Its just a suggestion,  but I write this to provoke a discussion, so that perhaps we can find a better way of preventing TS against new players, or players with less skill, than using prohibitive measures. No-body likes policing, everybody like free sweets.

Your thoughts?

[Search17]

Fix this system please 

At least make it, if you under 33% u stay there until you get higher. Right now I am at 20% (lol@me) and I can barely get 1 game a day.
And it takes me having a partner thats 70%+. But in reality what 70%+ player wants to put his company on the line with a partner with 20% 

Anywho, thats my idea.
I NEED CP! cant get it without playing!

Thanks

[TodlichPanther]

ANTS is bs, some people cant even play.......needs to be optional.

[ccam]

just came back from greece and must ask. What is ANTS?

[Razor]

just came back from greece and must ask. What is ANTS?

Anti Team Stacking

[Unkn0wn]

We do not want new players to fight 100% stacked teams.  While they may be willing, it gives them a poor taste of EiR and they are much less likely to play again.

That's just a complete rubbish arguement.
They were warned before hand and they'll be aware that the game they are about to play is not going to be the ideal example of EIR gameplay. New players aren't 5 year olds that you have to hold by their hand and protect from all kinds of external dangers, let THEM decide, not a system that isn't even functioning properly.

New players will be more likely to leave because of not finding a game or having to wait over 30+ minutes in a launcher, rather than leaving because they willingly decided to play a somewhat unmatched game.

ANTS doesn't work, and untill it actually functions within a rating %, it should be taken out.

[Skewldya]

They were warned before hand and they'll be aware that the game they are about to play is not going to be the ideal example of EIR gameplay. New players aren't 5 year olds that you have to hold by their hand and protect from all kinds of external dangers, let THEM decide, not a system that isn't even functioning properly.

Thats probably the best way that this could be explained, but the sad thing is Unknown that for some reason the Devs here and the Devs in other games feel that they have to make things catered to 5 yr olds in order for it to be fair and "fun," well its not, and LIFE is not fair, and most of the time it is a bitch; but people get over it and DEAL with it.  ANTS is broke, that is so obvious (as is the complete one sided balance, but thats another thread) but the Devs refuse to go back on it because it is their vision.  I understand that they have a vision of EiR that they want to get to, but using a system like this were it limits people to the games they can play, makes it very difficult to get games set up, and actually played.  Someone else made a good point there are players in this community that people just cant connect to, so with the hidden feature enabled it just wastes everyones time when these players attempt to join a game because it just has to be abandoned after it launches, then we have to wait another 15 min to get a replacement for that person.

[Ucross]

We know that ANTS is not ideal.  We do not have the "programming time" available to alter it =/   We have much better solutions than ANTS but right now we cannot change it nor remove it due to programming limitations.  If you'd like to hire us a good programmer please do and you will find a we will implement a much better system than ANTS in a couple days.

[salan]

We know that ANTS is not ideal.  We do not have the "programming time" available to alter it =/   We have much better solutions than ANTS but right now we cannot change it nor remove it due to programming limitations.  If you'd like to hire us a good programmer please do and you will find a we will implement a much better system than ANTS in a couple days.

I was trying to offer my friends muffins to program for you guys ( they do it for a living ) ... but sadly, they don't like my cooking !

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

give them damn cupcakes! or better yet, cookies, all internetz peoplez lovez teh cookiez!

[Unkn0wn]

We know that ANTS is not ideal.  We do not have the "programming time" available to alter it =/   We have much better solutions than ANTS but right now we cannot change it nor remove it due to programming limitations.  If you'd like to hire us a good programmer please do and you will find a we will implement a much better system than ANTS in a couple days.

How exactly is it that you can't remove it for the time being...?

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

Selective programming skills

[Skewldya]

Yea I didnt understand that part either, why can it not be removed,  you can comment it out and there ya go, its gone.

[Ucross]

How exactly is it that you can't remove it for the time being...?

It takes time, you can't just comment it out, and we don't have anyone available to work on the launcher right now.  Fl- is gone, and I cant' do it and Phil is busy.  Fl- could likely not do it anyway.